麻豆淫院

It's well known that governing parties often lose voters over time鈥攖he so-called cost of governing. But a new study from Frederik Hjorth, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen, documents a lesser-known but potentially crucial side effect of being in government: politicians begin to speak less simply and understandably.

"We see that politicians in government use more complex language than their colleagues in the opposition鈥攏ot because they want to, but because they have to," says Hjorth.

1.5 million text snippets reveal the pattern

The study, in the journal Comparative Political Studies, is based on an analysis of almost 1.5 million text snippets from parliamentary speeches over three decades. Using language technology, Frederik Hjorth measured how understandable the speeches were and compared this to whether the speaker was in government or not.

The results are clear: when politicians enter government, their language becomes less simple. But when they leave government again, they return to more understandable language.

"This suggests that it's not about personal style or learning, but about the demands and roles you are subject to as a minister," explains Hjorth.

He emphasizes three factors that contribute to the effect:

1. Bureaucratic jargon: Ministers have to deal with technical and legal details.
2. Formal roles: for example, they have to present bills that are often written in difficult language.
3. Topic choice: Government politicians talk more about complex issues like regulation and crisis management鈥攁nd less about ideologically clear topics like tax and immigration.

"It's not because they don't want to speak clearly, it's because their role forces them to talk about difficult things in a precise way," Hjorth points out.

Voters favor simplicity

But voters don't reward complexity. In an experiment with more than 4,000 participants, Hjorth shows that politicians who use simple language are rated more favorably, even when the content is the same.

"This confirms that there is a real political cost to speaking in a complicated way. Voters just prefer simplicity," he says.

The study also points to a possible explanation for the popularity of populist movements: populists can speak simply and directly鈥攕omething government politicians find harder to do.

"Populists often emphasize that the elites have lost touch with the people. This study suggests that the criticism is correct in a sense: more technocratic language is part of the price of government accountability," says Hjorth.

According to him, the study shows that government power doesn't just cost voters. It also costs the ability to communicate simply.

"This gives the opposition a rhetorical advantage and may help explain why governing parties often lose support鈥擜nd why new, linguistically sharp challengers gain ground," Hjorth concludes.